```

[House Report 109-261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress                                            Rept. 109-261
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================

 
                           STOPP ACT OF 2005

                                _______
                                

October 31, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3405]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3405) to prohibit the provision of Federal economic 
development assistance for any State or locality that uses the 
power of eminent domain power to obtain property for private 
commercial development or that fails to pay relocation costs to 
persons displaced by use of the power of eminent domain for 
economic development purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening the Ownership of Private 
Property Act of 2005'' or the ``STOPP Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER FEDERAL ECONOMIC 
                    DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.

  (a) Prohibition of Assistance.--
          (1) Prohibition.--If, after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act, an entity using the power of a State engages in any 
        conduct described in subsection (b), no officer or employee of 
        the Federal Government having responsibility over Federal 
        financial assistance under any Federal economic development 
        program shall make such assistance available to the relevant 
        entity during the period described in paragraph (3).
          (2) Entity to which assistance is prohibited.--In this 
        subsection, the term ``relevant entity'' means--
                  (A) the entity engaging in the conduct described in 
                subsection (b), if that entity is a State or a unit of 
                general local government of a State; and
                  (B) the State or unit of general local government 
                that gave authority for the entity to engage in that 
                conduct, in any other case.
          (3) Duration of prohibition.--The period referred to in 
        paragraph (1) is the period that begins on the date the officer 
        or employee of the Federal Government having responsibility 
        over Federal financial assistance under the Federal economic 
        development program determines that the relevant entity has 
        engaged in the conduct described in subsection (b) and ends 
        with the earlier of--
                  (A) the day that is two years after the date the 
                period began; or
                  (B) the day that the property is returned to the 
                entity from whom the property was taken.
  (b) Conduct Resulting in Prohibition of Assistance.--The conduct 
described in this subsection is the following:
          (1) Any use of the power of eminent domain to take property 
        from a private entity and transfer the ownership of, or a 
        leasehold interest, in the property (or a portion thereof) to 
        another private entity, except for a transfer--
                  (A) for use by a public utility;
                  (B) for a road or other right of way or means, open 
                to the public or common carriers, for transportation;
                  (C) for an aqueduct, pipeline, or similar use;
                  (D) for a prison or hospital; or
                  (E) for any use during and in relation to a national 
                emergency or national disaster declared by the 
                President under other law.
          (2) Failure to provide relocation assistance for persons 
        displaced by use of eminent domain for economic development.--
        Failing to provide, to any person displaced from property by 
        the use of the power of eminent domain for any economic 
        development purpose, relocation assistance under the Uniform 
        Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies 
        Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) in the same manner and to 
        the same extent as relocation assistance would be required 
        under such Act to be provided by a Federal agency that 
        undertakes a program or project that results in displacement of 
        the person.

SEC. 3. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

  The owner of any real property taken by conduct resulting in the 
prohibition by this Act of assistance may, in a civil action, obtain 
injunctive and declaratory relief to require the enforcement of that 
prohibition.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Federal economic development program.--The term ``Federal 
        economic development program'' means any of the following 
        programs:
                  (A) Department of agriculture.--
                          (i) Forest service.--
                                  (I) Programs under the National 
                                Forest-Dependent Rural Communities 
                                Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7 
                                U.S.C. 6611 et seq.).
                                  (II) The rural development through 
                                forestry program authorized by the 
                                Department of the Interior and Related 
                                Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 
                                (Public Law 109-54; 119 Stat. 538), and 
                                subsequent appropriations laws.
                          (ii) Rural business-cooperative service.--
                                  (I) The intermediary relending 
                                program under section 1323 of the Food 
                                Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1932 
                                note).
                                  (II) The rural business opportunities 
                                grant program under section 306(a)(11) 
                                of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
                                Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(11)).
                                  (III) The program for assistance to 
                                cooperatives for economic development 
                                under the Act of July 2, 1926 (7 U.S.C. 
                                451 et seq.) and subtitle A of the 
                                Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
                                U.S.C. 1621 et seq.).
                                  (IV) The rural business enterprise 
                                grants program under section 310B(c) of 
                                the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
                                Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)).
                                  (V) The rural economic development 
                                loans and grants program under title 
                                III of the Rural Electrification Act of 
                                1936 (7 U.S.C. 930 et seq.).
                          (iii) Rural utilities service.--
                                  (I) The program for grants, direct 
                                loans, and guaranteed loans for water 
                                and waste disposal systems for rural 
                                communities under paragraphs (1) and 
                                (2) of section 306(a) of the 
                                Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
                                Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)).
                                  (II) The Rural Utilities Service 
                                program for grants and loans to the 
                                Denali Commission under section 
                                19(a)(2) of the Rural Electrification 
                                Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 918a(a)(2)).
                          (iv) Rural housing service.--
                                  (I) The rural community development 
                                initiative pursuant to the Agriculture, 
                                Rural Development, Food and Drug 
                                Administration, and Related Agencies 
                                Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 
                                106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-17) and the 
                                Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
                                and Drug Administration, and Related 
                                Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 
                                (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2826).
                                  (II) The program for loans and grants 
                                for essential community facilities 
                                under section 306(a)(1) of the 
                                Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
                                Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(1)).
                          (v) Farm service agency.--The program for 
                        loans to Indian tribes and tribal corporations 
                        under the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
                        Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.).
                          (vi) Rural business investment program.--The 
                        rural business investment program under 
                        subtitle H of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
                        Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009cc et seq.).
                  (B) Department of commerce--economic development 
                administration.--Any program for financial assistance 
                under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 
                1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.).
                  (C) Department of housing and urban development.--
                          (i) The community development block grant 
                        programs under title I of the Housing and 
                        Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
                        5301 et seq.), including the entitlement 
                        grants, small cities, special purpose and 
                        insular areas grants, States, Indian tribe 
                        grants, and loan guarantee programs.
                          (ii) The brownfields economic development 
                        initiative under section 108(q) of the Housing 
                        and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 
                        U.S.C. 5308(q)).
                          (iii) The rural housing and economic 
                        development program of the Department of 
                        Housing and Urban Development pursuant to title 
                        II of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
                        Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
                        Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 
                        108-447; 118 Stat. 3300) and title II of the 
                        Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
                        Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
                        Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-276; 
                        112 Stat. 2475).
                          (iv) The Indian housing block grant program 
                        under the Native American Housing Assistance 
                        and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 
                        4101 et seq.).
                  (D) Department of the interior--bureau of indian 
                affairs.--The programs for grants, loans, and loan 
                guarantees for Indian economic development of the 
                Office of Economic Development, Bureau of Indian 
                Affairs of the Department of the Interior.
                  (E) Department of the treasury.--The community 
                development financial institutions fund program under 
                subtitle A of title I of the Riegle Community 
                Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12 
                U.S.C. 4701 et seq.).
                  (F) Appalachian regional commission.--Any program for 
                assistance for Appalachian regional development under 
                subtitle IV of title 40, United States Code.
                  (G) National credit union administration.--The 
                community development revolving loan fund program for 
                credit unions under the Community Development Credit 
                Union Revolving Loan Fund Transfer Act (42 U.S.C. 9822 
                note).
                  (H) Denali commission.--The Denali Commission program 
                under the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 2131 
                et seq.).
                  (I) Delta regional authority.--The program for Delta 
                regional development under subtitle F of the 
                Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
                2009aa et seq.).
                  (J) Department of health and human services.--The 
                discretionary award program relating to local community 
                economic development under section 680 of the Community 
                Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9921).
          (2) Federal financial assistance.--The term ``Federal 
        financial assistance'' has the meaning given such term in 
        section 101 of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
        Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
          (3) State.--The term ``State'' means any of the States of the 
        United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
        Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
        Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any other 
        territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

  If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof, is held 
invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the application 
of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be 
affected thereby.

                           BRIEF EXPLANATION

    H.R. 3405 prohibits Federal agencies from providing funding 
to a state or local government under specified Federal economic 
development programs for two years under certain conditions. 
Two conditions result in the prohibition of funding. First, 
H.R. 3405 prohibits funding to a state or local government that 
uses the eminent domain power to transfer property from a 
private entity to another private entity unless the transfer is 
for a use listed as an exception. The exceptions include use by 
a public utility; a road or other right of way or means, open 
to the public or common carriers for transportation; an 
aqueduct, pipeline, or similar use; a prison or hospital; or 
any use during and in relation to a national emergency or 
national disaster declared by the President. Second, H.R. 3405 
prohibits funding to a state or local government that fails to 
provide relocation assistance to a person displaced from 
property by any use of eminent domain for a economic 
development purpose. Relocation assistance must meet the level 
and be of the same manner as that required under the Uniform 
Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. 
H.R. 3405 provides landowners a private right of action to 
enforce the prohibition of funds under this Act.

                            PURPOSE AND NEED

    Private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and 
our prosperity, and is one of the most fundamental principles 
embedded in our Constitution. The founders realized the 
importance of property rights when they codified the Takings 
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which 
requires that private property shall not be taken ``for public 
use, without just compensation.'' This clause created two 
conditions to the government taking private property: that the 
subsequent use of the property is for the public and that the 
government gives the property owners just compensation.
    However, the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Kelo v. 
City of New London is a step in the opposite direction. This 
controversial ruling expands the ability of state and local 
governments to exercise eminent domain powers to seize property 
under the guise of ``economic development'' when the ``public 
use'' is as incidental as generating tax revenues or creating 
jobs, even in situations where the government takes property 
from one private individual and gives it to another private 
entity.
    By defining ``public use'' so expansively, the Court 
essentially erased any protection for private property as 
understood by the founders of our nation. In the wake of this 
decision, state and local governments can use eminent domain 
powers to take the property of any individual for nearly any 
reason. Cities may now bulldoze private citizens' homes, farms, 
and small businesses to make way for shopping malls or other 
developments.
    For example, in California a local government used eminent 
domain to acquire 24 acres of land consisting of single family 
homes, a motel and other small businesses. After reaching deals 
with 11 of the 34 property owners, the city approved eminent 
domain proceedings to take the remaining property to make way 
for a warehouse store. Congress must take steps to stop these 
types of abuses.
    H.R. 3405, the Strengthening The Ownership of Private 
Property (STOPP) Act of 2005, as amended by the House 
Agriculture Committee, would create a strong incentive for 
state and local governments to refrain from using eminent 
domain powers to take private property from one owner and give 
it to another private owner. Specifically, thislegislation 
prohibits all federal economic development funding for localities and 
states that use eminent domain in this way. The legislation also 
withholds federal economic development funding from any state or local 
government that uses eminent domain for economic development purposes, 
and does not then comply with the procedures in the Uniform Relocation 
Act, which would require state and local governments to pay relocation 
costs for individuals affected by eminent domain proceedings.

                           SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title

Section 2. Conditions of financial assistance under federal economic 
        development programs

    (a) Prohibits the Federal government from providing 
financial assistance, as defined in Section 4, to relevant 
entities when a State or unit of local government engages in 
conduct defined under subsection (b). The relevant entity is 
either the entity engaging in the conduct described in 
subsection (b) or the State or unit of general local government 
that gave authority for the entity to engage in that conduct in 
any other case. The period of prohibition shall begin on the 
date that a Federal officer or employee determines the entity 
engaged in such conduct and continue until either 2 years have 
passed or the entity returns the property to the owner.
    (b) Defines two types of conduct that result in prohibition 
of assistance. The first conduct described is any use of 
eminent domain to take property and transfer ownership or 
leasehold from a private entity to another private entity. 
Provides an exception for transfers for the following purposes:
          (1) Use by a public utility;
          (2) A road or other right of way or means, open to 
        the public or common carriers, for transportation;
          (3) An aqueduct, pipeline or similar use;
          (4) A prison or hospital, or;
          (5) Any use during and in relation to a national 
        emergency or national disaster declared by the 
        President under other law.
    The second type of conduct is failure to provide relocation 
assistance to any person displaced by the use of eminent domain 
for any economic development purpose. This assistance must be 
of the same manner and extent as that required of the Federal 
government under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970.

Section 3. Private right of action

    Provides any property owner whose property is taken by 
conduct resulting in prohibition of assistance under this Act 
the right to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief to 
enforce the prohibition.

Section 4. Definitions

    Defines Federal Economic Development Program, Federal 
Financial Assistance, and State.

Section 5. Severability

    Provides that if any portion of this Act is held invalid, 
the remainder of the Act is not affected by the ruling.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

I. Hearings

    On September 7, 2005, the Committee on Agriculture held a 
hearing on the impact of the Kelo v. City of New London 
Decision and to analyze the merits of H.R. 3405, the 
``Strengthening the Ownership of Private Property (STOPP) Act 
of 2005.
    The panel of witnesses included The Honorable Henry 
Bonilla, Member of Congress from Texas and author of the bill, 
H.R. 3405; The Honorable Maxine Waters, Member of Congress from 
California; Mr. Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau 
of Washington, D.C.; Mr. Christopher Bartolomucci, Partner, 
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., of Washington, D.C.; Mr. Alva J. 
Hopkins, III, Chairman, Government Affairs Committee, Forest 
Landowners Association, Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia; Ms. Dana 
Berliner, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice of Washington, 
D.C.; The Honorable William J. Howell, Speaker of the House, 
House of Delegates, Virginia General Assembly, on behalf of the 
American Legislative Exchange Council of Washington, D.C.; Dr. 
Roger Pilon, Founder and Director, Center for Constitutional 
Studies, CATO Institute of Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Jonathan 
Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washington Law 
School of Washington, D.C.

II. Full Committee consideration

    The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice, with 
a quorum present, on October 7, 2005, to consider H.R. 3405, 
legislation to prohibit the provision of Federal economic 
development assistance for any State or locality that uses the 
power of eminent domain to obtain property for private 
commercial development or that fails to pay relocation costs to 
persons displaced by use of the power of eminent domain for 
economic development purposes.
    Chairman Goodlatte called the meeting to order and made an 
opening statement as did Ranking Member Peterson, Ms. Herseth, 
and Mr. King. Without objection, H.R. 3405 was placed before 
the Committee and open for amendment at any point. Counsel was 
then recognized to give a brief summary of the bill.
    Discussion occurred and Chairman Goodlatte then placed 
before the Committee an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
to H.R. 3405, offered by himself, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Pombo, and 
Ms. Herseth, to be considered as original text for purposes of 
amendment.
    Brief discussion occurred regarding the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3405. However, there being no 
further amendments, the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
was adopted by a voice vote.
    Mr. Peterson moved that H.R. 3405, as amended, be reported 
favorably to the House with the recommendation that it pass. By 
a recorded vote of 40 yeas--1 nay, H.R. 3405, as amended, was 
ordered favorably reported to the House. See Rollcall Vote No. 
1.
    Chairman Goodlatte then advised Members that pursuant to 
the Rules of the House of Representatives that Members have 2 
calendar days to file such views with the Committee. Mr. 
Marshall indicated that he intended to submit an additional 
statement for the record. The Chairman stated that the record 
would be kept open for five business days to receive additional 
material.
    Without objection, staff was given permission to make any 
necessary clerical, technical or conforming changes to reflect 
the intent of the Committee.
    Chairman Goodlatte thanked all the Members and adjourned 
the meeting subject to the call of the Chair.
                   REPORTING THE BILL--ROLLCALL VOTES

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee sets forth the record of the 
following rollcall votes taken with respect to H.R. 3405.

Rollcall No. 1

    Summary: Motion to favorably report H.R. 3405, as amended 
to the House with the recommendation that it pass.
    Offered by: Mr. Peterson.
    Results: Adopted by a vote of 40 yeas/ 1 nay/ 5 not voting.

                                  YEAS

1. Goodlatte                        21. Schmidt
2. Pombo                            22. Peterson
3. Everett                          23. Holden
4. Lucas                            24. McIntyre
5. Moran                            25. Etheridge
6. Jenkins                          26. Baca
7. Gutknecht                        27. Cardoza
8. Hayes                            28. Scott
9. Johnson                          29. Marshall
10. Osborne                         30. Herseth
11. Pence                           31. Butterfield
12. Graves                          32. Cuellar
13. Bonner                          33. Melancon
14. King                            34. Costa
15. Musgrave                        35. Salazar
16. Neugebauer                      36. Barrow
17. Boustany                        37. Pomeroy
18. Kuhl                            38. Larsen
19. Foxx                            39. Davis
20. Conaway                         40. Chandler

                                  NAYS

1. Case

                               NOT VOTING

1. Boehner
2. Rogers
3. Schwarz
4. Fortenberry
5. Boswell
                      COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture's 
oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 
body of this report.

           BUDGET ACT COMPLIANCE (SECTIONS 308, 402, AND 423)

    The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new 
budget authority, new spending authority, new credit authority, 
or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not 
considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to 
be prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 submitted to the Committee prior to the 
filing of this report are as follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 19, 2005.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3405, the 
Strengthening the Ownership of Private Property Act of 2005.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Gregory 
Waring.
            Sincerely,
                                           Donald B. Marron
                               (For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3405--Strengthening the Ownership of Private Property Act of 2005

    H.R. 3405 would direct federal agencies to deny economic 
development assistance to any state or local entity that 
violates either of two prohibitions on its use of the power of 
eminent domain. First, a government could not use the power of 
eminent domain to transfer ownership of property from one 
private entity to another, unless the transfer is for one of 
several purposes listed in the bill. Second, a government could 
not use eminent domain for economic development purposes 
without providing relocation assistance to displaced property 
owners. The denial of federal assistance would continue for two 
years or until the affected jurisdiction returns the property 
at issue to its original owner. Finally, the bill would give 
private property owners the right to bring civil actions to 
seek enforcement of these prohibitions if they are subject to a 
prohibited action.
    CBO expects that implementing the bill would have no 
significant impact on the federal budget because most 
jurisdictions would not risk the economic development 
assistance they receive from the federal government by using 
eminent domain as described in the bill. Further, a few states 
are considering legislation that would restrict the authority 
of localities to take private property for economic development 
projects. By denying economic assistance for up to two years to 
localities using eminent domain in a way proscribed in the 
bill, the pace of spending for some grant programs could be 
marginally reduced. Enacting the bill would not affect direct 
spending or revenues.
    The bill specifies several programs operated by the 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban 
Development, and other agencies as subject to the potential 
denial of federal assistance. As a result of the bill's 
disincentive to use eminent domain for private property 
transfers and the small likelihood that a jurisdiction would 
put its federal assistance in jeopardy, CBO assumes that H.R. 
3405 would not have a significant impact on spending for the 
specified federal programs.
    H.R. 3405 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, but 
would impose significant new conditions on the receipt of 
federal economic development assistance by state, local, and 
tribal governments. These governments receive assistance 
totaling about $6.5 billion each year from the programs that 
could be affected by the bill. Because these conditions would 
apply to such a large pool of funds, the bill effectively would 
restrict the use of eminent domain, and would have a 
significant impact on local governments' powers to manage land 
use in their jurisdictions. The requirement to pay relocation 
assistance also could result in additional costs for state and 
local governments. Further, state and local governments 
probably would incur significant additional legal expense to 
respond to private legal actions authorized by the bill.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Gregory Waring 
(for federal costs) and Marjorie Miller (for the state and 
local impact). This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to 
prohibit the provision of Federal economic development 
assistance for any State or locality that uses the power of 
eminent domain power to obtain property for private commercial 
development or that fails to pay relocation costs to persons 
displaced by use of the power of eminent domain for economic 
development purposes.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the 
Constitutional authority for this legislation in Article I, 
clause 8, section 18, that grants Congress the power to make 
all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the powers 
vested by Congress in the Constitution of the United States or 
in any department or officer thereof.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee report incorporates the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to sections 402 and 423 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                      ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this 
legislation.

                APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

                       FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

    The Committee adopted as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                                  

```